Considering what Singer has been saying about a sequel, I think it would have the potential to outgross this one.

Just curious, what has Singer been saying about a sequel? I'd be interested to know.

Exactly.

By any reasonable standards, this film has been a success. It's going to make $300 million (at least) in international box office. It's going to sell a shitload of toys and T-shirts. It allowed WB to dust off all of their old Superproperties and sell them on DVD (The damn Superboy show is now available. 'nuff said.) It will allow them in November to have a huge sales of not only this film on DVD, but also the Chris Reeve stuff that is spiffyed-up. There's a lot of money here that is being made, simply because this film got released.

Then there's pay-per-view, premium cable, standard TV, HD-DVD, and double- and triple-dips through the end of eternity. They have a valuable, profitable film here.


The problem is that 'reasonable standards' no longer apply when you spend $200+ million making a movie. It either has to beat Titanic, or it is a disappointment. There's no middle ground.

The budget (and subsequent studio expectations) were out of line with what they should have expected. It doesn't help that $50 million was spent before Singer even got started, or that $10 million sequences (like the Return to Krypton) landed on the cutting room floor. Or that the media loves conflict, so we've been seeing nonstop 'Pirates beat Superflop' stories.

A disappointment? Probably for the studio. But I'd greenlight a sequel (with a more reasonable budget) in a heartbeat. They have a great franchise staring them right in the face... it would be a shame if they walked away.

That he intends to release it in 2009, and that he wants to go "Wrath of Khan" on it.

If I was Warners, I'd respond to that by saying "Good, because we're giving you a WRATH OF KHAN budget."

Production budget for ST: The Motion Picture = $35 million
Production bugget for ST II: The Wrath of Khan = $11 million

Which is funny, considering that X2 had some heavy "Wrath of Khan" influence as well. Is that his plan for every sequel he makes, go "Wrath of Khan" on it?

Ah, geez...Do you really want to see special effects shots re-used from SUPERMAN RETURNS into the sequel like STII:TWOK did?

Not a Star Trek fan... going "Wrath of Khan" on it means what, exactly?

Duh! It means Ricardo Montalban is going to star in it.

Khan is pretty much considered not only a huge step up from the first Star Trek movie, but also the best out of the original cast's movies. Kinda like Empire was for Star Wars. If Bryan can pull off the same thing he did with the improvement from X1 (which I still hate) to X2 (which is one of my favorite movies), then I'm willing to wait for what he has in store for the sequel to SR which I absolutely love.

It also implies a darker, grittier piece, with a greater sense of potential loss on the side of the good guys.

Jeez...Superman Returns was far darker & gritter than any of the first four movies.

I personally wish they would just go in a completely new direction. Dump the Clark Kent persona (and the reporter stuff) and have him deal with being Superman everyday. Or at least have ace reporter Lois and several others figure the damn secret identity out...wearing a pair of glasses just doesn't fly this days (no pun intended).

Throw in a realistic super-villain and dump Lex Luthor for good. I loved Spacey's portrayal but Lex has gotta go. Give us a different love interest. I know that may be departing too much from the comic book but lets move it into the 21st century.

By the way...I loved Superman Returns but I just want to see something different out of the sequel.

but he still deals with the clark kent stuff in the comics. If anything, the film didn't even touch on any of the five years past for Clark or how it is tough for him to start over as clark kent. Shit, they didn't do anything with clark kent which was pretty annoying. He just shows up after five years and ta da! welcome back. They touch on him not having a place to stay but nothing else. It was really a waste of potential there.

You do need to have a villain that can go toe to toe with superman in a battle of fist. Simply put that is what folks pay to see. Superman kicking some ass. He can't do it against lex because that is a more mind over matter type of battle anyways. You have to do it with a monster.

1. Brainiac (some form or another)
2. Parasite (Would be a great choice, Superman weak, someone else gets his powers)
3. Intergang (Could be cool, they could make Metallo, to go after Superman)
4. Bizarro (Not sure I like the idea, could go really bad)
5. Doomsday (cool to see sceens of his coming out of the ground throughout the movie, only to see his shadow at the end. Setup for the next movie.)
6. Prankster/Toyman (See Supes take him down at the beginning of the movie, not the main Villian)

I'm sure they could find a way to have Zod regain his powers and be in the sequel.

He tasks me Lex, he tasks me and I shall have him...I'll chase him round the moons of Krypton and round The Phantom Zone and round The Daily Planet before I give him up!

So just keep the character in name and that's all, right?

Did this happen in anyone else's area?

About half of the local theaters cut back SUPERMAN RETURNS showings to two or three shows daily (in only one theater in multiplexes) and the smaller theaters got rid of it completely. If that's a nationwide move, the movie will be lucky to make it to $190 million, let alone $200 million domestically.

It's losing 821 theaters this weekend and will now be playing in 2,005. After this weekend, it'll likely have about $186-$187 million and change. If it doesn't reach $200 million, it's not the end of the world. I have confidence we'll see the sequel in 2009 or so. I doubt we'll see Warner executives on the streets begging for change.

Wow. Reading that list makes me realize how much Superman's gallery of villains sucks.

I agree Bizarro would be bad. Doomsday i just some rampaging monster, and Prankster and Toyman seem like third rate Batman villains.

Intergang, I have no idea. Parasite might be interesting if he does more than siphon off Superman's power. Brainiac...I dunno. I dislike the name, and there's been so many revisions of the bald, green-skinned guy that I don't what who people mean when they name him as a villain.

Maybe they should bring back Ross Webster?

Superman Returns worldwide gross: $317 million ($185 US)

It's slowly chugging along. Batman Begins' worldwide total was $371 million. I hope it can at least reach that. There are talks of a possible re-release down the road to push this over $200 million with the added opening sequence. But no one knows for sure...

The problem with doing that is that Superman as a cultural icon is permanently attached to Clark Kent, Lois Lane, Lex Luthor, Jimmy Olsen, Perry White, and the Daily Planet. And those fucking glasses. You're never going to get them to break that dymanic, even though a shake-up would do the movies a world of good.

I'd like to see Clark Kent die. I'd like to see a situation where Kent is known to be in a location where he has no possibility of escape (such as the crashing airplane in SR) and Superman fails to save the plane. Obviously, Kent jetisoned his persona and Superman tried to save the plane, but he fails. It would be a hell of a lot more interesting than the usual "Gee, Clark is strong enough to stop a car with his bare hands. I wonder if Superman knows about this guy" schtick that usually fills Superman movies.

Once the current Batman movies run out of steam, maybe we'll finally get our Superman/Batman team-up movie. That would be even better than whacking Kent.

Actually, "SR" was at $185,794,683 by Sunday. THIS close to 186M

We all know now it won't bake a mil a day during the week. But (hopefully) it will limp along to 200M when all is said and done. I still think WB should re-release it as in late August maybe Labor Day weekend with a campain like "See it again on the big screen!". However, I would prefer a SE on the big screen.

That would be a great idea. I'd go see it probably twice again (already seen it twice).

As far as diappointments go, I think every film that doesn't double its production budget in box office is a "disappointment" to the studio. But these days, box office is secondary to home video. The DVD market, I'm totally convinced, is where the studios really look to making their money, and the theatrical release is for building interest and the money is just gravy.

And a movie like SR will not only be a HUGE DVD hit, it will be a perennial favorite as both a fanboy double and triple-dip moneymaker (through various "special editions") but also as a family favorite for many years to come.

Personally I wish it had done better at the box office, just so there would be no doubt that we'd get another one or two Superman movies, but I'm fairly certain that we haven't seen the last of Brandon Routh as the Man of Steel.